How do I as a Catholic refute these Muslim claims

[Servant19]

If you want to talk about scholarship, tell me, what scholar affirms that Jesus taught bahai doctrines? Tell me how you defend your belief in the virgin birth which secular scholars deny happening?

Tell me, if you want to treat the gospel of Barnabas seriously, do you deny Jesus was the Christ?

Hello Ignatian. I am not really interested in the Gospel of Barnabas, haven’t read it, probably never will

In regards to to scholarship, it is encouraged in the Baha’i Faith, because it is a religion of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. Showing forth love is the biggest commandment of every religion, especially Christianity.

Can you show me one instance where Jesus commands to fight for so-called “truth” over “love”?



.

 

[Servant19]

For instance, the one thing about Jesus’ life scholars are most agreed on is the fact that he was crucified, which Muslims typically deny. On the other hand, Muslims believe in the virgin birth, which is probably the most historically dubious of all the major things asserted about Jesus in the NT.

Hello Edwin

Don’t you think this is strange??

That a Prophet would come and invite all to “submit” themselves before God, urges everyone to do so, and then turns around and supposedly denies the very foundation of belief in Christianity thereby alienating an entire population from “submitting themselves before God”…bit of a silly move huh?

And all this after saying also that Jesus WAS born in a virgin birth…

What possible benefit could there be from this? Muhammad was not “stupid”, He started something that has outlasted all other sources of social cohesion since Christianity. Only a smart person can do such a thing don’t you think?

I know what you will probably think…He was deceived by a demon and He similarly deceived an ill-educated population.

Let me humbly offer this perspective dear friend.

Muhammad says two critical things in the Quran:

1. “They said, “We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him…"

…and…

1. “And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living…” (2:154)
   “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live…” (3:169)

Now compare both these quotes with Quran 3:102
" Fear Allah as He should be Feared, and die not except in a state of Islam…"

Muslims can think what they want from these verses, they may all be interpreting it wrong, (as they have with some extremist groups and their interpretations) but what do you understand from these two verses, (in the context of the comparative verse I quoted last) from the mouth of Muhammad?



.

 

[jjmonroy]

Islam is essentially calling Jews and Christians liars.

My main two contentions to this. Jesus picked Peter, Peter worked with Paul. He concurred with what Paul taught. We believe these Christians were filled with the Spirit of God to discern the teachings of God from falsehood.

Secondly the Mosaic law was meant exclusively for the nation of Israel. Those laws were created to 1.)purify the nation of Israel e.g. stoning adulterers but also to keep 2.)it’s longevity e.g. capital punishment for traitors. A perfect example for both of these criteria: a heretic.

When Jesus came he fulfilled the law he didn’t abolish it. He gave the law a deeper meaning. This is found in the story of the adulterous woman.

Jesus did not demand the death of her, he told her to repent “sin no more”. For the first criteria.1.) Jesus elevated Jewish morality by saying that even lusting after someone is a sin. Morality is still in play we are to abstain from sin. For the second criteria 2.) Jesus did not come to establish or reconstruct the nation of Israel. So the requirement for longevity is unnecessary. Jesus said his “kingdom is not of this earth”.

Christians in the first century did not stone adulterers, yet Muslims claim “true” Christians followed the same teachings Muslims practice.

So whose right Christians in the first century that followed Christ and did not continue on with the practice of stoning adulterers or Muhammad a 7th century Arab who proclaimed himself a prophet of God because he borrowed substantially from the Judeo-Christian faith?

I don’t believe the disciples of Christ who were all martyred would turn their back on Christ’s teachings after experiencing his resurrection and then the imparting of the Holy Spirit on them.

Plus Islam at least in the Shia tradition allows for deception known as taqqiya. If there’s something that I value in Christianity is that we put all the cards in the table we don’t try to paint ourselves as saints in every instance of ourlives. We know clearly of Popes who did wrong things, like we do of people in the Old Testament which we revere but also fell short sometimes. Truth is an essential value in Christianity after all. John 8:32 "Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

 

[Servant19]

Hi jj

Can you please provide your sources for this:

Christians in the first century did not stone adulterers, yet Muslims claim “true” Christians followed the same teachings Muslims practice.

…so we can gain an understanding of the context of this assertion?
(specifically in regards to the Muslims claim…)



.

 

[jjmonroy]

Muslims claim that as Christianity evolved we changed/abandoned the Mosaic law. That’s why Muhammad reinstated the requirement of death for sins like adultery (consistency).

Yet there’s no evidence to show that Christians ever practice the Mosaic law. Who understands Christianity more first century Jewish Christians or Muhammad a 7th century Arab?

 

[Servant19]

Muslims claim that as Christianity evolved we changed/abandoned the Mosaic law. That’s why Muhammad reinstated the requirement of death for sins like adultery (consistency).

Yet there’s no evidence to show that Christians ever practice the Mosaic law. Who understands Christianity more first century Jewish Christians or Muhammad a 7th century Arab?

I think you will find that there was dispute about circumcision and breaking bread with Gentiles between Paul and the Jerusalem Assembly. Am I incorrect in this understanding?

.

 

[tonyfish58]

The thing is that the person making the claim has the burden of proof. These are all a bunch of claims that THEY need to substantiate before we think about the need to refute them. If the proof for all this “distortion” of the Old and New Testaments comes from the claims of a 7th century book, I’m going to be rather quick to reject these claims much like I’m rather quick to reject the similar claims of a book written in the 19th century.

Would that not be the same as saying that the Gospels when they were written were a Distortion of the Old Testament ? Would one also have to Reject the Gospels based on that criteria stated above?

In fact the Jews Did! So should not one look for another criteria for distinguishing Truth.

We could use these following criteria to judge a Prophet, to which also give evidence of Christ.

Were they known before their revelation to be extraordinary persons?
Did they Make a claim of Prophet hood?
Did they reveal and attribute their words to God?
Did they Live by the Word they Revealed?
Did they Suffer Persecution because of the Revelation?
Did the Word become a Book that became a Testimony after Martyrdom?
Did they set new Standards and Laws?
Did the early Believers give their all for the Faith?
Did the New Faith Grow into a Mighty Faith of unified Believers?

There are so many wonderful Fruits upon the Tree of Truth that we can Judge by, but instead we seem to choose the fruit that has fallen rotten upon the Earth to be our standard to judge by?

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[jjmonroy]

I think you will find that there was dispute about circumcision and breaking bread with Gentiles between Paul and the Jerusalem Assembly. Am I incorrect in this understanding?

.

Those are issues of Jewish ritual not of Jewish morality. Read this article it’s more in depth.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

 

[jjmonroy]

Would that not be the same as saying that the Gospels when they were written were a Distortion of the Old Testament ? Would one also have to Reject the Gospels based on that criteria stated above?

In fact the Jews Did! So should not one look for another criteria for distinguishing Truth.

We could use these following criteria to judge a Prophet, to which also give evidence of Christ.

Were they known before their revelation to be extraordinary persons?
Did they Make a claim of Prophet hood?
Did they reveal and attribute their words to God?
Did they Live by the Word they Revealed?
Did they Suffer Persecution because of the Revelation?
Did the Word become a Book that became a Testimony after Martyrdom?
Did they set new Standards and Laws?
Did the early Believers give their all for the Faith?
Did the New Faith Grow into a Mighty Faith of unified Believers?

There are so many wonderful Fruits upon the Tree of Truth that we can Judge by, but instead we seem to choose the fruit that has fallen rotten upon the Earth to be our standard to judge by?

God Bless and Regards Tony

Christians have never claimed Jews distorted the Old Testament. After all when Jesus went to temple he read from those scriptures giving them validity. Christians give a newer understanding to them however in light of what Jesus taught. We use the same scriptures we don’t label Jews as liars. In fact the first Christians were Jews and many were knowledgeable of scripture e.g. Paul.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Christians have never claimed Jews distorted the Old Testament. After all when Jesus went to temple he read from those scriptures giving them validity. Christians give a newer understanding to them however in light of what Jesus taught. We use the same scriptures we don’t label Jews as liars. In fact the first Christians were Jews and many were knowledgeable of scripture e.g. Paul.

Good points!

 

[tonyfish58]

Christians have never claimed Jews distorted the Old Testament. After all when Jesus went to temple he read from those scriptures giving them validity. Christians give a newer understanding to them however in light of what Jesus taught. We use the same scriptures we don’t label Jews as liars. In fact the first Christians were Jews and many were knowledgeable of scripture e.g. Paul.

There you have hit the nail on the head, well said 100% agree

You have stated the exact example of what Muhummad did for the Jews & Christians and what Baha’u’llah also did for Jews, Christians and Muslims. It can be used word for word as an example and the standard for all Faiths.

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[abucs]

Islam professes to be a restoration of the true Abrahamic religion. It claims that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all Muslims who merely taught submission to Allah.

1. It claims that Jews and Christians all distorted the revealed books of Allah (Torah, Psalms, and Gospels).

A couple of things.

The gospels are all about the life of Jesus. It is hard to think that these writings were distorted from a supposed original that was more in line with Islam. Clearly the life of Jesus is the basis of the gospels.

Secondly, Islam came centuries after Christianity. The canon and writings of the Church were finalised centuries before Islam. Why does the Koran not speak out and explain the supposed corruptions of the Christian texts? In fact it says to the Muslims that if they have any doubts they should consult the ‘people of the book’. Which book? The book that Muslims supposed afterwards must have been corrupted?

 

[Servant19]

Those are issues of Jewish ritual not of Jewish morality. Read this article it’s more in depth.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

Hi jj,

So would you not say that adultery is an immoral act? Islam is simply stating that adultery is immoral and worthy of punishment, would you not agree?

All I am saying is that when you say “Yet there’s no evidence to show that Christians ever practice the Mosaic law”, all I am saying is that James and the Jerusalem Assembly did with circumcision and Passover and encouraged it amongst early Christians…



.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Hello Ignatian. I am not really interested in the Gospel of Barnabas, haven’t read it, probably never will

In regards to to scholarship, it is encouraged in the Baha’i Faith, because it is a religion of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. Showing forth love is the biggest commandment of every religion, especially Christianity.

Can you show me one instance where Jesus commands to fight for so-called “truth” over “love”?



.

Can you show me where Jesus calls us to deny the truth? The truth being Jesus himself? You also ignored my question. You called Muhammad good and said he defended people. How do you know this?

 

[CompSciGuy]

Islam professes to be a restoration of the true Abrahamic religion. It claims that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all Muslims who merely taught submission to Allah.

1. It claims that Jews and Christians all distorted the revealed books of Allah (Torah, Psalms, and Gospels).
   -Muslim apologists justify this by mentioning the non-canonical books e.g. Gospel of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermes.
   -Also by finding similarities in early Christian sects e.g. Arianism (rejects the Christian Trinity).
2. Furthermore they claim that Jews defiled the biographies of the Prophets by insinuating that they committed major sins e.g. King David committing adultery.
   -They also claim Jews defiled God’s character e.g. God commanding the killing of the Canaanites which included women and children.
   -They reject the Jewish claim that God is a Father; they see their relationship with him as Master and slave.
3. As for Christians they claim we inserted pagan beliefs e.g. Trinity.
   -They claim Christians commit idolatry: praying to Mary, and the saints. Also by having pictures, icons, statues of them.
   -They claim the sacred mysteries of our Christian faith are illogical (Jesus’ hypostatic union fully God and fully man). They claim we made Christ divine, he never utter the words “I am God”.
4. (Defense for sharia). Muslim apologists justify the use of capital punishment in their religion by finding similarities in the OT when God commanded the nation of Israel to execute severe sentences for sinners e.g. stoning adulterers.
5. (Defense for jihad). Muslims apologists defend Muhammad military campaign as one in line with OT kings, and prophets e.g. King David, Moses.
6. (Defense for polygamy). Muslims assert that because revered people in the OT were allowed to have multiple wives Muhammad continued on with that practice.

***While I reject Muhammad’s prophethood. I understand that he’s a social reformer. I believe he was successful in creating a great religion based on the precepts of both Jewish and Christian teaching. My narrative is a reconciliation between Islamic, secular, Jewish and Christian sources. At some point in Muhammad’s life he came in contact with Jews and Christians. He admired what he saw in both respective communities. He sought to bring that same stability, uniformity and peace with his own people the warring Arab tribes of his time. Unfortunately for Muhammad his people were not interested in his new message. They were set in their old ways. Eventually Muhammad realize that he would need to claim the title of prophet in order to gain legitimacy for his actions. He sought to find common ground with Jews and Christians. Both would reject granting him this status. Nonetheless Muhammad would continue to win converts, and eventually land as well.

Islam is successful because it has enough truth to attract people to it. e.g. monotheism, 99 names of Allah, reward & merit. It’s also filled with tremendous falsehoods e.g. denial of Christ’s divinity, death, and resurrection. Islam basically makes religion simple it negates all mystery of the faith and simply asks its members to submit to Allah and perform certain exercises to appease him e.g. hajj, charity. Islam will continue to show its might on this world because like Christianity it’s a universal faith. And like Judaism it employs severe punishments in order to keep uniformity in it’s stringent teachings.***

Are you familiar with the term “historical revisionism?” It is like a form of conspiracy theory, like the holocaust deniers, etc. Muhammad is basically claiming the corruption or fabrication of the gospels which have been carefully copied and passed down (at the time, for six centuries), not to mention written about extensively for that same length of time, without any evidence for such a corruption whatsoever, and conveniently provides the “real stories” of the gospel, Noah, etc. He’s in the same camp as Joseph Smith. If he is to be believed, then there needs to exist some example of a legitimate, written gospel from the first century affirming his claims. The fact of the matter is, we can only see the past through the lens of history, which provides us with documentation and that documentation tells us that the gospels clearly proclaim the divinity of Christ, and the Old Testament clearly tells us the stories of Noah, David, Abraham and the rest. There is no reason to doubt these things just because a warlord tells us that they got it wrong.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Muhammad is basically claiming the corruption or fabrication of the gospels which have been carefully copied and passed down

Muhammad accuses the followers of Moses and Christ of corruption in their interpretations, not the Holy Books themselves!

 

[eddie_too]

the followers of Christ wrote the New Testament.

if mohammed really claimed that they distorted the New Testament, he really lacked in scholarship it would appear. the NT would not exist except for the followers of Christ. how does a person distort what they have written.

 

[sousley]

Hello dear friend. This is not the point. The point is that He was a Prophet, and His station as a Prophet is in no way weakened because He married several women and took on their children in order to save them from brutality.

It is commonplace among many to assign “sin” onto Muhammad for this action and to deny His Prophet-hood resultingly. This is a grievous error…



.

Hi Servant. Hope your day is going well. I disagree, my response was exactly on point to the inquiry to which I was responding. The response you offer is not one that was in discussion. I am aware that Mohammad proclaimed himself to be a prophet of God. This claim is substantiated only by himself. Firstly, were he a prophet, there would have been little reason to verse himself about the religions of the day, including Judaism and Arianism, prior to the formation of his own religion. but in the rejection of these ‘corrupt’ scriptures in lieu of the Koran, he does chose to follow some of the precepts contained within. So while he rejects the writings, he selects some actions of the people about whom the writings apply. All of this means that until 600 AD, God was either inept as a Teacher of right worship, or the sins of His creation were of sufficient power to overshadow His abilities to espouse His people. If all ‘Godly’ religion were corrupt until the time of Muhammad, this would cast more a messianic light to Muhammad’s claims rather than simply prophet.

But in neither the faith of the Jews nor the faith of the Christians was there an expectation that another prophet was to be necessary. The Jews were looking for the advent of their Messiah and the Christians were anticipating Jesus’s return. So there is no continuity of religious practice were Mohammed’s claim of prophet would ever be thought necessary among God’s people. So either God had no people making Mohammed the primary messianic character OR there is a continuity of faith in God throughout the ages of human history and Mohammed is outside that very continuum.

As for me, I say God is not inept and Mohammed is not a prophet, regardless of his own claims.

Hey, if Ignatian, jj, tony or one of you guys would check my logic for holes I’d appreciate it.

 

[sousley]

Muhammad accuses the followers of Moses and Christ of corruption in their interpretations, not the Holy Books themselves!

If that were the case, there would have been no reason to write a new one; he would have simply clarified what already existed. Jesus didn’t write a new version of the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[Contarini]

Are you familiar with the term “historical revisionism?” It is like a form of conspiracy theory, like the holocaust deniers, etc.

It’s used that way as a slur by people who are not academics.

Among academics, it simply means a theory that revises what we thought we knew. It’s a neutral term–sometimes it turns out to be correct and sometimes not.

For instance, the view of the English Reformation popular among Catholics on this forum, which sees those events as a top-down governmental imposition rather than a popular movement, is a revisionist view. The “classic” view is the Whig theory in which the Reformation was part of a movement toward democracy and greater freedom.

Edwin